Skip to main content

About this Show

The O Reilly Factor

News/Business. (2012) (CC)




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Virtual Ch. 760 (FOX NEWS HD)






Us 12, Benghazi 12, America 6, Greg 5, Lance Armstrong 5, Libya 5, Washington 4, Advair 4, Ben Stein 3, Obama 3, Ben 3, Cairo 3, Campbell 2, Erin 2, Adt 2, Greg Gutfeld 2, Aclu 2, Kristy 2, Jonathan 2, Dara 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX News    The O Reilly Factor    News/Business.  (2012)  (CC)  

    November 16, 2012
    8:00 - 9:00pm PST  

go to we will see you all monday night. 10:00 p.m. eastern, right here. good night from washington, d.c., " is on tonight. >> general petraeus' briefing was comprehensive. added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence. >> former c.i.a. director david petraeus finally testifies about the benghazi scandal. what did he know and when did he know it? we will have the inside story. >> the talking points from the c.i.a. specifically mentioned al-qaeda and al-qaeda was involved in the attack. when the talking points were finalized, all the references to al-qaeda were taken out. >> who changed the original talking points about the benghazi attack to take out references to al-qaeda? and why? we will investigate. >> i think we're all aware that we have some urgent business to do, but the folks are look for
is action. >> plus, president obama and john boehner launch another effort to save the country from falling off the fiscal cliff. economists will be here to size up negotiations. caution. you are about to enter the no spin zone. "the factor" begins right now. >> hi. i'm greg gutfeld in for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight's. let's get to our top story. general david petraeus on capitol hill testifying about libya. exactly one week after resigning as the head of the c.i.a. because of an affair, petraeus testified today in closed door hearings in front of both the house and senate intelligence committees. according to those who were there, petraeus said the c.i.a. immediately suspected that al-qaeda was involved in the 9-11 benghazi attack. but for some reason, the original c.i.a. talking points had been altered. the al-qaeda reference removed.
this raises all kind of questions. joining me now to answer them, senator roy blunt, a member of the senate intelligence committee who is in washington this evening. i got to say, this is isn't just a smoking gun. it's like a smoking cannon. this news is pretty big. >> well, i think it is big and i think it's big in really questioning how the intelligence operation we now have in the country works. how what we did after 9-11 has impacted the system and after 9-11, we thought we have to coordinate everything. there has to be a system that funnels through the director of national intelligence and i have real questions about our capacity to make decisions and then to pass those decisions along, greg. from among other things, until we got the surveillance tape from the compound and that had to come after the libyans had retrieved it for us, looked at it, given it to us, it took ten,
12 days to decide there wasn't a demonstration. if all of the intelligence efforts of the united states government can't figure out something this basic that many people were saying were the key to the whole situation that it didn't even happen at all for 12 days, that's pretty amazing with all the effort we make to find out what's going on in the world. >> this administration has created more tails than a tuxedo factory to the point that we don't know what's going on. why do you think the line was removed? >> well, the people we talked to the last couple of days, nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility for that or know when it happened. and seems to me, everybody was disserved. the people who used these talking points were disserved. the people who heard what was being said were disserved by eliminating the part of the discussion that indicated there were people involved who had ties to these terrorist organizations and that this was a planned attack, though there
is some view that it might not have been a long planned attack, but it clearly didn't have anything to do with the spontaneous thing occurring out of a demonstration that by the way, greg, didn't happen. >> exactly. it was a politically correct fantasy. so we end once again where we began. who pushed the video? where did this story start? >> well, who pushed the start about the video? >> yeah. >> that's a good question. i think there may have been a cairo element to that video. i think that may have had something to do with what happened in cairo. nobody died in cairo. and jumping to the conclusion or decide to go advance the conclusion in benghazi that, well, it's all about the video turned out to be hugely wrong and very misleading to the people that heard those talking points. we're talking about what's the difference in classified and unclassified talking points? apparently unclassified talking
points are things that you can most of us, if you work hard enough, could get from anywhere. but if you've got classified talking points that show that's not right, why wouldn't you use those as well? did ambassador rice have access to different information in addition to the talking points, are i think a fair question for her and the add. >> and the president to answer. >> thank you. we got to run. more on the startling revelations about the c.i.a.'s libya talk points in a moment then dana perino, who is that, on the press corp.'s romance with the president. plus, ben stein will enter the no spin zone to assess the fiscal cliff situation. will we fall off it? we'll find out. those reports after these messages [ male announcer ] when was the last time something made your jaw drop?
campbell's has 24 new soups that will make it drop over, and over again. ♪ from jammin' jerk chicken, to creamy gouda bisque. see what's new from campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. [ birds chirping ] are you sure you can fit in there? [ chuckles ] ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] around view monitor with bird's-eye view. nice work. [ male announcer ] introducing the all-new nissan pathfinder. it's our most innovative pathfinder ever. nissan. innovation that cites. ♪
to get our adt security system. and one really big reason -- the house next door. our neighbor's house was broken into. luckily, her family wasn't there, but what if this happened here? what if our girls were home? and since we can't monitor everything 24/7, we got someone who could. adt. [ male announcer ] while some companies are new to home security, adt has been helping to save lives for over 135 years. we have more monitoring centers, more of tomorrow's technology right here today, and more value. 24/7 monitoring against burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide, starting at just over $1 a day. and now get adt installed for just $99. isn't your family worth america's number one security company, adt? [ woman ] our girls got us thiing, but the break-in got us calling. [ man ] a after buying two of everything, it was nice to only need one security system -- adt. [ male announcer ] get adt installed for just $99, and ask about adt pulse, advanced home management here today. adt. always there.
but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can be in the scene. advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at
>> greg: continuing now with our top story, who changed the original c.i.a. report that suggested al-qaeda was involved in the 9-11 benghazi attack and why? what did the ramifications of that? joining me from washington, lieutenant colonel tony schaefer who works at the center for advanced defense studies and helped prepare some members of congress for the hearings. colonel, there were more angles than a picasso painting. i can't keep up. what do you make of these latest revelations? >> well, this is clearly indicative of a process which it relevant or necessary to actually help the president make critical decisions, or someone cooked the books. there is nothing in between that. either we have to believe that everybody just, you know, simply did not understand what was going on and somehow allowed this process to kind of willie nilly end up giving -- producing talking points for ambassador rice to say something totally 180 out from what the factual intelligence was indicating, or again, someone, somewhere at the
policy level, not the intelligence or factual level, decided to change things at some point in time. >> greg: we're talking about the fact that the reference to al-qaeda was removed and replaced with the phrase, extremists. okay. why would you do that? what's the reason? my theory is that it's a fear of islamphobia. you don't want to mention what the thing is, so you replace it with something softer like man caused disaster or workplace disasters in fort hood. >> that's a great point. i don't think the intelligence committee is ready to explore all the issues behind what's going on. this is but one step, greg, and i would say probably a larger process to actually engage the judiciary committee, the foreign relations committee, and the armed services committee. this covers everything. i think today was just simply the tip of the iceberg. the bottom line is this: let me be very clear, as a field officer, people like me work, put their lives on the line to produce factual information to help policy makers make the
correct decision. what we saw here, greg, is basically the complete abandonment of that hard work for the purposes of some information which became politicized. again, this was not an intelligence failure because as you know, katherine herrage on fox broke information two weeks ago about the fact that in august, we knew that al-qaeda was raising its head again effectively. so this was not intelligence failure. this is a policy failure and again, this is where we have to drive the investigation. why was the policy so flawed that allowed factual intelligence over a period of time to be ignored and most importantly, resulting in the deaths of four individuals on 9-11. >> greg: yeah. to me, it's politics over people and it's politics over patriots. did it have anything to do with an upcoming election? >> i can't help to think it didn't. had it to have something to do with what was going on at that point in time. let me be very clear on this, again, my comments here are my own. not my think tanks. make it clear. i said on fox news within 48
hours that i felt based on my sources this was a terrorist attack. everybody else who was a professional from that moment on recognized what it was. but somehow between, again, that field level, the guys, the boots on the ground level and that air that exists over at the pennsylvania -- at the white house, got changed. the question is where? apparently there is only a handful of people who could have done this. let me be very clear. it wasn't james clapper, he testified yesterday. he said he didn't do it. so if you leave clapper, all pointers go back to the white house, specifically the national security council. >> greg: i have a feeling they're going to end up blaming the white house caterer. it's going to be something like that. they've thrown so many people under the bus, they're like jiffy lube. i predict that some people will say it doesn't matter that they replaced the group's names, al-qaeda with extremists. they're going to say that's the
same thing. why is it not the same thing? >> it's not the same thing because factually, that is inaccurate. there was valid, valuable intelligence that indicated specifically who was involved. greg, i wasn't in those hearings, but i'm telling you, i'm forecasting, we will come to find that they knew down to the actual individual who was involved in these attacks. they know that now. they're just not talking about it. so what the problem is this, this lays the ground work for impeachment of the officers by the congress. the congress has to show some backbone here and hold people accountable because ultimately the crime here was lying to congress, providing false information to congress. i know this because i talked to a constitutional attorney, driving in today for your show. >> greg: you think the media will care about this now? >> god, i hope they do. i don't see how they can't. this is not simply watergate where nobody died. people died here, greg. intelligence indicated there was a threat and it was ignored. doesn't make sense to put it aside. >> greg: thank you. thanks for coming by.
up ahead, what does geraldo make of the latest information coming out of the benghazi hearings? and later, disgraced cyclist lance armstrong has been dropped by his own cancer charity. ouch. we'll have an update on that [ male announcer ] coughequence™ #8. waking the baby. [ coughs ] [ baby crying ] ♪ [ male announcer ] robitussin® liquid formula soothes your throat on contact and the active ingredient relieves your cough. robitussin®. don't suffer the coughequences™. i'm thinking about upgrading... finally! jonathan was fine when you were in your 20s, but he's not right for you. good-bye jonathan and his creepy little girl hands. i meant... [ male announcer ] or choosing a windows 8 device with help from the experts at staples.
another way staples and hp make it easier to upgrade. make your windows 8 experience even better with hp. and this week, get $200 off the hp envy dv6 notebook. staples. that was easy. gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone...but her likes 50% more cash. but i'm upping my game. do you want a candy cane? yes! do you want the puppy? yes! do you want a tricycle? yes! do you want 50 percent more cash? no! ♪ festive. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet?
>> greg: the president's press conference. >> kristy parsons. >> hey. >> thank you, mr. president. and congregations, by the way. >> kristy was there when i was running for state senate. >> that's right, i was. >> kristy and i go back a ways. >> i've seen never you lose. i wasn't looking that one time. >> there you go.
>> greg: yeah. think i'm going to cry or possibly be sick. keep in mind that this was ways his presser at the white house in eight months. joining me to reek, my fellow tiny co-host from "the five" and former white house press secretary for president george w. bush, dana perino. two of us together, still don't equal bill's height. >> does bill know you're here playing dress up? >> greg: no, not at all. i don't know if this is being taped. >> we're on equal standing here. >> greg: i want to ask you, congratulations in a presser. you're like miss manners. wouldn't a thank you note suffice? this is a serious press conference and it's like she's meeting justin bieber. >> every time i see the clip, i cringe a little bit. the president is very good. very charming, disarming. president bush had nicknames for people and he could get them off their game a little bit. reporters talk a great game before a press conference. they're like, i'm going to get this and i'm going to ask this and then they got there and i
have never seen anything quite like this. it was like she had just met the beatles. >> greg: yes. exactly. or new kids on the block. >> i know those are your favorite bands. >> greg: i still have the posters all over my wall. 'cause i still live at moment was there a nickname for you? >> i don't know. >> greg: you don't? >> i'm not going to tell you. >> greg: good. here is the other thing that i loved about that press conference, is how president obama uses personal faux outrage to blunt criticism when ed henry asked about susan rice and he -- it was more not an attack on her, it was an attack on him. he felt as though how dare you, how dare you do this? it seemed a bit condescending, but i think it worked because there wasn't much follow-up. >> there is not. and most of the questions start with respectfully, sir. actually this is our system is set up so that the people are represented through the press, to the president. there are so many serious questions that could have been asked and that he should have
had to answer. plus, i don't see why he doesn't have a press conference three times a week he runs the room. he gets them all off their game. he absolutely is very good. he should have them more often as he promise to do do in the campaign in 08. he said he would have one press conference a month. >> greg: i don't think handle that. i barely stayed awake through that. when he talked about drones, most of the drones are in the press conferences. >> in his tone. >> greg: yes. the other thing we talked about was missed opportunity. for a great reporter to make a name for himself in the story that's coming up, the media's love for him has blunted their ability to report him objectively about what's going on in benghazi, what happened in libya. >> yes. it's almost as if the reporters are trying to run a marathon with lead weights on their ankles. if they could take that off, they might see their careers blossom. big scandals. there have been many throughout history that made reporter's careers. the most famous is probably
woodward and burn stein after watergate. peter baker of the "new york times," he was there covering the monica lewinsky affair from beginning to end and ended up writing a book about that and went on, he's a distinguished reporter now at the "new york times." >> greg: yeah. even go back to the valerie plain. that was made into like a vanity fair large article, then a tv show. >> many books, several books about it. >> greg: did anybody die from that? did anybody die from watergate? you have four people die, yet this story is seen as a nonstory. journalists should realize that somebody famous could end up playing you in a movie. they're that shallow. maybe that would work. >> they have to play that game. they could send around who would play me in a movie. there was a so-called scandal during the bush administration towards the end when nine u.s. attorneys who served at the pleasure of the president, which means you can be fired for waking up in the morning and saying boo. they were asked to resign. they moved on. there were four hearings, public hearings in congress.
it was on the front pages of every paper every day. i think somebody got a pulitzer prize for this. even if reporters want to cover this, for example, benghazi scandal or fast and furious, they can't get it on the front page and can't get on air because i don't know what the motivation is on the editing level, but somebody is holding back some great reporters. and this kind of thing takes time. the woodward and burnstein reporting took months to uncover the details. so people aren't as patient as they might have been before as the story unfolds. but it is the duty of the press to represent us well. >> greg: do you think it's the reporters or do you think it's the editors? does the reporters keep themselves from printing these stories because he knows he might lose his job or -- >> right. they have to feed their families, too. maybe after the third time you try to get something on the air and they say north texas then you leave it alone. but there are places where you can get good information. for example, steven hayes of the weekly standard and also a fox news contributor, he knows more
about this benghazi issue than just about anybody else. you can follow his reporting and i'm realizing, steve hayes brought this point up eight weeks ago when it was first unfolding. so there are reporters doing a great job. you just have to work harder as a consumer to find them. >> greg: one upside, i think we're getting closer to the story because they're now bringing up race. whenever they bring up the race card, a congressman said that people are going after susan rice because she's an african-american. that always tells me that we're getting closer to the truett when the race card is being played. >> plus an african-american woman. a threefer. at the beginning of the obama administration, he decided to make the u.n. ambassador a cabinet level position. when you're cabinet secretary, you have some obligation to perform your duties and then to be held responsible for them and accountable for them. i appreciate that he's loyal to her and she is loyal to him that he defended her, but i do think that the senators have legitimate reasons to question
whether or not she should be the secretary of state. >> greg: yeah. i don't think that's going to happen. but what do i know? >> not much. >> greg: thank you very much for coming here and providing some mediocre information. plenty more ahead. i joke, little person. "the factor" moves along, the most troubling story of the night. the end of twinkies and wonder bread as hostess plans to shut down after union strike crip ams its production. ben stein will be here with the story in a few moments y. but because of business people like you, things are beginning to get rolling. and regions is here to help. making it easier with the expertise and service to keep those wheels turning. from business loans to cash management, we want to be your partner moving forward. so switch to regions. and let's get going. together.
>> greg: in "the factor" follow-up segment, fiscal cliff negotiations officially kicked off today at the white house. i hate the phrase fiscal cliff. anyway, with the president laying out a clear agenda. >> i think we're all aware that we have some urgent business to do. we've got to make sure that taxes don't go up on middle class families, that our economy remains strong, that we're creating jobs, and that's an agenda that democrats and
republicans and independents, people all across the country share. >> greg: as you may know, automatic federal spending cuts and tax increases will hit the u.s. on january 1, unless president obama and congress agree to an alternative way to reduce the budget deficit so will they strike a deal? joining us now from l.a., ben stein, the author of the book "how to really ruin your financial life and portfolio." first off, if we go up the fiscal cliff, what happens? will i have to sell all my unicorn hummels? >> i don't think you'll have to sell anything, greg. i don't think it will be the end of the world. we're talking about at most, i would think a couple of months, probably more like a couple of weeks before they reach some kind of compromise. but the fact is, taxes will go up. tax also go up on rich people a lot. on really, really rich people, a really, really lot. and we need it. we need higher taxes. we need more revenue. we can not keep running these deficits forever. >> greg: boo on you, ben. i disagree with everything you said.
but you're an actor and economist. i kind of understand why you want to raise taxes. it's about getting invite to do more cocktail parties. >> not at all. i don't get invited to any cocktail parties. i don't drink anyway. but look, the whole idea from being republican is fiscal sensibility. and fiscal sensibility says we cannot run $16 trillion debt. we can not have it go up to $20 trillion. we can not leave our children and grandchildren a defaulted bankrupt america. so where did we get the money? we can cut government spending and we must. we absolutely must. with you we have a lot of rich people in this country. they have an awful lot of money. they're not taxed enough. >> greg: i disagree in the sense that the more that you feed the beast, the beast will never go on a diet. the beast will keep eating. i was listening to you earlier today on miss kelly's show. your argument for raising taxes is, it's not going to hurt us that much. is that really a good argument for raising taxes? >> i don't think it's going to
hurt us at all compared with continuing to run these huge deficits. obviously if i thought it was bad to keep running these huge deficits, i would say do that. but we've had year after year in the bush administration and in the obama administration in which said taxes don't have to go up. deficits don't matter. turns out they do matter. turns out that we go bankrupt, it will matter a lot. where to get the money from? well, i'd like to have every citizen in america pay at least some taxes, even if it's $100. but there are very, very many very rich people. they're tax are the lowest they've ever been since world war ii doesn't make sense. >> greg: that, to me is not an argument. we've got plenty of revenue coming in. it's about spending. it's like why do you raise taxes when you know that spending is the problem. >> it isn't the problem. it's partly the problem. and taxes are part of the problem. we're spending way more than we
should and there is incredible waste in the federal government. we need some kind of serious commitment with teeth to get that waste out of the government. we've also cut taxes over and over again during the bush administration. we cut them a tiny bit for the first obama administration. we need more revenue. as mr. obama said, he said it's not calculus. it's remit me particular. we can't get it just by cuts. we need to raise taxes. what do you care if they raise taxes on some rich person? >> because i'm not a class warfarist. i want to be rich. >> you are already rich. >> greg: i'm rich in my soul. >> no, you are rich all together. what does it matter if a person is making five, ten, 20, 30 million a year, pays another few hundred thousand in taxes? what does it matter to him? >> greg: do you actual lea think i'm in that pay range? my statist are at fox news. i live in a basement. i want to tell you, though,
whenever you raise taxes, it never goes against anything. it just goes for more spending. >> that's not so. when president reagan -- look, everyone says oh, reagan cut taxes and revenue went up. he cut taxes in his first year. every year after that he raised taxes and in some years after that he raised them quite dramatically. so let's go back to the gipper and say, he realized the tax was a good idea until he saw it didn't work, then he raised taxes. i hate paying taxes, too. but we need the revenue. we don't want to be a bankrupt country. >> greg: you're a communist. i want to talk about hostess. the makers of twinkies and wonder bread, don't know what that is. they're going out of business after striking workers failed to hit a thursday deadline to return to work. so here is the amazing thin that i've learned, ben, the lesson here is that we thought that the twinkies could outlast everything. except unions.
are you devastated? >> i'm not devastated. there are plenty of other delicious sugary snacks out there. but i think it's an example about unions really misunderstand their duty in life. i'm a union man, screen actors guild, another hollywood union of the union cost its workers their jobs isn't much of a union. i don't understand how they can go home at night and say that their employees, look, by the way, we just cost you your job. we took a firm stand against the management bosses. what good does that do? >> greg: yeah, exactly. you don't just lose the twinkie, you also lose the snowballs and the dingdongs. by the way, if hostess had moved to china and the 18,500 jobs went there, i don't think anybody -- the left would go crazy. but because the unions are killing those jobs, not much of a story. >> interestingly enough, i bet there will be some foreign manufacturer of twinkies or something like that. why not? why shouldn't that happen?
although it would be much better to keep the jobs in america. >> greg: you don't know if you want to get a twinkie made overseas because they've had problems making toys. you know? >> but we all drive a lot -- a lot of us drive cars made overseas. >> greg: they look 2009ies. ben, awesome talking to you, got to go. >> thank you inform when we come back, geraldo rivera on general petraeus' testimony today. and the cool factor putting president obama back in the white house. geraldo, he's next having you ship my gifts couldn't be easier. well, having a ton of locations doesn't hurt. and my daughter loves the santa. oh, ah sir. that is a customer. let's not tell mom. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress.
fedex office.
>> greg: thanks for staying with us. i'm greg gutfeld in for bill o'reilly. in the friday's with geraldo segment, there are so many questions surrounding the timing of general petraeus' resignation, including why didn't president obama know about the investigation into the former c.i.a. director earlier? attorney general eric holder attempted to clear that up.
>> we made the determine aches as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, have made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the hill. >> greg: with us now, the legendary geraldo rivera. before we get to the petraeus investigation, i want to get your thoughts on the libya testimony today. amazing stuff about removing this line, referring to al-qaeda. would you say that's the opposite of transparent? >> well, i think that you could make a reasonable argument that they were trying to package this tragedy in a way that was least harmful to the president in the run up to the election. i don't have any proof of that. >> greg: wow. i didn't expect that from you. >> you know, i think you could reasonably argue it. i don't know that's a fact. but i think that you can infer
that maybe they decided -- first of all, let me just -- >> greg: that's huge. i was going to say that and i thought you were going to bite my head off. >> let me back up. the line they allegedly took out was the al-qaeda reference. >> greg: right. >> al-qaeda, this is not your mother's al-qaeda in libya. what is al-qaeda? al-qaeda is the kind of the most militant, aggressive, deadly, radical islamist group in the world and they obviously the perpetrators of 9-11 and the cole disaster and so many of the worst terrorist attacks against us. al-qaeda since the death of bin laden certainly, but after the attack the by our drones and troopers in afghanistan and elsewhere has become almost a branding. so i think it's entirely reasonable to assume that these militia men who a year ago were just radical islamist middle tans, anti-american killing dogs now style themselves as al-qaeda. so i think it's not unreasonable
to think that they were look at this. why do we have to say al-qaeda when the president already killed al-qaeda? he killed bin laden, general motors is alive. bin laden is dead. let's just go back to the generic ther than the brand. >> greg: i mean, they played with language. that's what this administration does. >> i think there is an allegation to that. i'm not suggesting that's the truth. but i think it's a reasonable possibility. >> greg: i think it is, too. when you think about the fact that fort hood is still workplace violence. >> fort hood, you know, i sat here with o'reilley and we debated and i said listen, until and unless and until you prove a connection with an al-qaeda operative, that's what it is. then they proved the connection, and that was the evidence. >> greg: i want to get back to -- you think holder told the president about this affair. they're practically joined at the hip. when obama falls, holder gets a bruise. >> i have a much higher regard than most in this building. i think he was besmirched in that fast and furious
investigation. having made that remark, let me hasten to add, he's like best friends with the president. >> greg: right. >> if it was my best friends and we were talking about the man who was the american napoleon, this figure larger than life who saved our behinds in iraq and then answered the call of duty in afghanistan and then went to the c.i.a. rather than run against the president as the republican nominee for the presidency, i think that i would, if it were me, if i was eric holder, i'd say, you know, boss, you know general petraeus? well, he got caught with his pants down and, you know, there is an investigation doesn't look like there is anything to it in terms of national security, but i'll keep you informed. i think that's entirely possible. but the other curious question in fairness, why didn't eric cantor, the house majority leader, why didn't he say something? he had the skinny on this whole thing as i understand it, before the month of october was up, so well in advance of the
presidential election. why didn't cantor, if someone was going to politicize it, why didn't he. >> greg: do you think the affair had any relationship to the benghazi stuff? >> i absolutely don't. i spoke with colonel peter, the executive officer for general petraeus when i -- one of the many times i interviewed general petraeus in theater. this was in 2007 when general petraeus was brilliantly leading the surge in iraq. so i met monsur. he has spoken several times to petraeus since the scandal broke, since the resignation. he swears to me and i asked the question six ways to sunday, that general petraeus told him absolutely nothing to do with benghazi. it was just about my dishonoring my own principles and cheating on my wife, therefore, because i violated my own principles, i have no choice but to resign from public life. >> greg: i don't think there is any connection between the two, although i do think it would have a psychological impact on him when he's talking about benghazi. >> now you're a shrink?
>> greg: i've been practicing psychology privately in my own house for many years. >> i'm holding a number up. what number am i holding up? 13. >> greg: if he wants to keep his job, he has to tow a line. say it was a flash mob in the beginning -- >> general petraeus, i've been with this guy when he had two stars, four stars. >> greg: he's a great guy. >> he's the best since eisenhower and to suggest that this man would in any way alter testimony for a political result or because he feared somebody might blackmail him, i think that someone, whoever is making that allegation is smoking something. maybe they're living in colorado or washington state. >> greg: how did you know. i wrote this book -- totally unnecessary. >> i liked your book. >> greg: thank you. >> it's very good. and i just tell you what i loved about it. >> greg: it's called "joy of hate." >> which is so you. i liked the exposing of the
double standard in media, specifically as it results -- affected the two main kind of populous uprisings we've had in the last couple years. on the one hand the tea party and on the other side, the occupy movement. and you correctly portray, i think in a very humorous way, how the occupy was kind of romanticized by the main stream media, while the tea party portrayed adds bumpkins and people who were uncool. and i also think that you point out very correctly that the president has a cool factor that mitt romney did not. >> greg: i think the media contributed to obama's election. but through this the cool over the uncool and the tea party is almost seen as your parents whereas the occupy wall street for reporters, they see themselves. we've got to move on. but thank you for plugging my book. that was very nice. quick note, bill currently has two books on the "new york times" best seller list. i bet you didn't know about that.
"killing kennedy" is number one and" killing lincoln" number three. quite an accomplishment. both books make a great christmas gift. if you want signed copies, simply go to just ahead, is america a nation of cheaters? we have a special factor factor investigation into the lance armstrong situation. and then the aclu taking president obama to task in a new ad. we'll show it to you after these messages
>> greg: in "the factor" flashback segment, disgraced olympic cyclist lance armstrong has been kicked to the curb by the chair he founded. yesterday the live strong foundation removed his name from the organization. armstrong won seven tour defrance titles, two more than me, but was recently stripped of them because he took performance enhancing drugs during the
races. for years armstrong denied doping, but the evidence against him is now overwhelming. bill recently spoke about it with dara torres, who won 12 olympic medals in swimming and a cyclist who competed in two summer olympic games. >> so were you surprised about lance armstrong? >> no, i wasn't. for years i had suspected that he and other athletes were doping and as a clean athlete, it was frustrating to watch their super human performances and hear stories from other athletes and feel like there was really nothing that i could do or even say because they weren't testing positive and so it seemed -- >> when you say you suspected armstrong in particular, he was vehement in his denials because this is not a story that just broke now. i mean, this is years and years and years and he got away with it for years and years. why did you suspect him? >> well, his performances were
suspect. any time you're in a sport that's faster, higher, stronger and they're super human performance, it has to make you think about it a little bit. >> you didn't think he was cycling too good. he couldn't have done that on like barry bonds hitting 75 home runs or whatever he did, that's just not a normal thing you do? >> exactly. and that along with the culture of the sport made me very suspicious. >> the culture of the sport is win at any cost? is that what you're saying? >> well, i think in all sports the current attitude is win at all costs. but in cycling especially, my opinion of what was happening in the european races, was that it was very common and not necessarily looked down upon among the riders in the european races. >> dara, you competed in swimming and i understand, though, it was rigorous drug testing done to you and other swimmers in the olympics, correct? >> yes, there was. i actually first got tested back in 1984 and testing has
definitely evolved over the years. i don't think people really know what actually goes into the testing. once you're an elite athlete, you have to be in the pool, world anti-doping agency and they basically, once you sign up, they basically have to know where you are 4/7 every single quarter. and so they can come and drug test you randomly. >> what does that mean? do they knock -- are your hotel door or your house? do they pull up at 6:00 o'clock in the morning? >> they do. i've had many tests just come at 6 in the morning and draw blood and test your urine. >> really? they knock on your door and say, dara, come out, we want to take your blood? is that what happens? >> well, actually they come into the house and take my blood snooks do they have a key or come through the window? how do they do it? >> well, i used to live in a gated community, so they would call me at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, the guard gate and say, john from usada is here. >> really? >> yeah.
i have to let them in. >> how does a guy, erin, like armstrong beat that? how does he beat that or does the tour defrance not care? >> it's interesting because for years i thought it had to be very sophisticated way to beat test. and after reading some of the articles that have come out in the last couple weeks, some of it was trial quite simple. as just not answering the door and pretending they weren't home when the testers came. but they also had much more sophisticated ways if they did have to give a sample. it seemed like oftentimes they had a lot of heads up and -- >> they would get substitute samples. did you get tested? did they test you? >> i was tested quite often. i was tested in competition, but also at of competition testing that dara mentioned where they come find you at any time. >> what do you think morally about this kind of cheating, 'cause we know it happened in baseball. we know happened in football. now we know it happened in cycling. what do you think morally about a guy who cheats? lance armstrong last year made
$15 million in endorsements. what do you think about that cheating? >> first of all, we do have to think about what he's done good, which is for cancer and for livestrong. so you think about that and that's great. but on the other side of it, i'm a huge advocate of clean athletes and clean sport. and at society we have to make a decision whether all athletes need to be clean or all of them have false super human performances because the minute an athlete who got caught cheating is inducted into any sports hall of fame, what's the point? >> greg: so you think armstrong should be prosecuted criminally? >> i think needs to happen is he either needs to fight these charges and -- >> he's not going to. he gave it up. >> right. or he needs to apologize. what everyone wants is for him to apologize, to come clean. >> is that, though, enough? erin, did you think he should be prosecuted?
>> i think more needs to be done. as a clean athlete, it makes me mad that people cheated because for years, i knew i wasn't competing on a fair playing field. >> i think it's fraud. i think it's fraud. >> it is. >> it's fraud. whether it's civil or criminal, i think that label has to be wrapped around this guy and others. >> greg: the aclu turns on the president. we'll explain in 60 second i love to eat. i love hanging out with my friends. i have a great fit with my dentures. i love kiwis. i've always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free -- it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles. super poligrip is zinc free. with just a few dabs, it's clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. super poligrip free made the kiwi an enjoyable experience. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip.
>> the aclu took out a full-page ad in the times, calling out president obama on promises he made and failed to keep in his first term. thri are upset about gitmo, immigration policy and the president's fail tower stand up for abortion rights. joining me is john flannery. so, john, now you are upset. the election's over. guess this timing had to be
coincidental. >> no, i don't think so. the headline is yes, you can. and the rest is, yes, you can do more. we push back on our friends and say you have one term to finish what you promised before your first campaign. these three issues -- there are many issues we could talk about, but these are three worthy issues. gaunt gawbt -- guantanamo, a stain on america. how do we handle the onslaught against women by the republican leadership, if not by the bulk of republicans, and the third thing, of course, is what do we do about immigration? two of those three the president has said he has plans. but the first one, guantanamo, not so much. he has eliminated torture and other thing, but there is a lot more to be done. >> you don't think he's done enough for abortion -- >> no. >> could he be in planned patienthood, actually performing them?
>> that's funny. this is what we have to do. you see by inches how people have made the religious notion that conception is the beginning of personhood, which challenges both contraception and a woman's right of choice of it abortion. in virginia, where i am from, they want to implant things in women who dared to have abortion. they have tried to limit where they can get medical treatment for abortions. we have a big push in this country by leadership against women having the right to exercise the right to be let alone and have an abortion. so there has been an attack on women. it does call for a response to protect them. why should a woman who needs to have an operation not be covered by insurance? why should she not be able to have contraceptions? especially when we have limited resources that constrains the resources we have. >> there is a policy reality about it. you are never going to get away with making abortions seem like
a regular surgery and a procedure. you will have to live with that. >> i hear what you are saying. but i don't think so. why give women the right to vote? >> i have been saying the same thing, john. [laughter] >> i want to ask you something -- >> well, that's your problem. >> i want to ask you about something that been driving me crazy. this has to be a weird president for you. the only president i know that has imprisoned a filmmaker over a film. the aclu has not said a darn thing about this coptic christian who is in jail for putting out an anti-muslim video. if this was an anti-christian video, you would be all over it, right? >> well "you guys," i don't know you who are putting me with. but i am betting he has a criminal defense lawyer. i can't believe there isn't a lawyer saying this is an exercise of free speech and the
most important kind of free speech is the kind you find the most intolerable and difficult -- we are not talking about fox. we are talking about the defendant in california. i don't believe for an instant that the arguments that you suggest are not being made against the administration. in the case of censorship, the aclu was saying, we can't discuss torture in the military commissions because it would be like revealing a trade secret on how we do torture -- or did torture, i should say. these are the issues. >> i wanted to know your solution for gitmo, if you are going to have bunk beds installed in your large home. >> 79 people who are innocent shouldn't be in prison any any circumstances, if unalienable rights means anything. >> good point. one quick programming note. if you are staying up late, stay tuned for red eye, after